On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 15:58:37 PST, Rick H Wesson said:
> think the IESG could at least put a "bad bad protocol" sitcker on it when
> they its published, or better yet give it a negative RFC number starting with
> negative RFC numbers would at least put it firmly into the minds of
> readers that the RFc should *not* be followed.
For a moment, I thought "but you can do that now..."
Then I took a look at RFC2026 in closer detail, and section 3.3 (e)
defines a "Not Recommended" status, just like I remembered.
Unfortunately, that seems to be strictly applicable to standards-track
documents only, not 'informational'. Whether this is a bug or a feature
I'll let others decide - it looks like a giant economy sized can-o-worms.
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
- Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Ve... Ian Jackson
- Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RR... Patrik F�ltstr�m
- Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol... Ed Gerck
- Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Prot... Patrik F�ltstr�m
- Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar ... Ed Gerck
- Re: Last Call: Registry Regis... Rick H Wesson
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Karl Auerbach
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Rick H Wesson
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Gordon Cook
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... David R. Conrad
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Ed Gerck
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... David R. Conrad
- Back to the drawing board... Ed Gerck
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Patrik F�ltstr�m
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Ed Gerck
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Patrik F�ltstr�m
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Ed Gerck
PGP signature